Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philbert)
    So it's ok to threaten to rape or murder someone as long as it's only a joke? Christ Alive. She did have a genuine misogynistic backlash against her. She was hounded for simply proposing a video series talking about the portrayal of women in video games, focusing on the fact that she's a woman. People on this thread are saying things like "if you don't like the games, don't play them", yet these "neckbeards" wanted to were trying to get it shut down because they didn't like the idea. Someone even made a game about punchng her on the basis that she'd scammed people out of their money. They may not have taken it seriously, but it shouldn't be ignored.
    A man saying the same thing would have got the same reaction and quite right too. These horrible little oiks can take their drivel and begone from the video game realm
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    The abstract of her thesis is two paragraphs long on the second page in to her essay and comes before the table of contents. The passage I quoted is from the top of page 9, within the introduction and comes just before the chapter opening of "Feminist Theory and Visual Culture". You sir, are a lying sycophant.

    Two points:
    1. Why should female characters only have to fall within the one archetype she finds morally acceptable? What mandate is there for all characterisations to become mono-cultural?

    2. She argues that strength and dominant personalities are not traits exclusive to males in her videos, but in her thesis claims that females that are 'strong' or dominant are just being males or donning a male costume. If you can't see that as a contradiction, you're a sociopath.
    ...A lying sycophant and a sociopath. Right. You know that paper hasn't been online on her site for a while so I was going from memory. Pretty honest mistake, really. But whatever. Feel free to continue being ridiculously dramatic as usual but I'm really not interested in debating someone like that, sorry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    ...A lying sycophant and a sociopath. Right. You know that paper hasn't been online on her site for a while so I was going from memory. Pretty honest mistake, really. But whatever. Feel free to continue being ridiculously dramatic as usual but I'm really not interested in debating someone like that, sorry.
    Well if you're going to fabricate nonsense in the hope that I wasn't using an actual reference source and thereby defeat my point, I'm going to call you out on it. If that's your level of debate is so debilitatingly childish and flawed that you'd try to get away with making stuff up under the guise that "er, I thought it was in the abstract despite not knowing er..yeah" then you're the one with the problem.

    I have no interest in debating a spineless, misinformed, sycophant like you.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Well if you're going to fabricate nonsense in the hope that I wasn't using an actual reference source and thereby defeat my point, I'm going to call you out on it. If that's your level of debate is so debilitatingly childish and flawed that you'd try to get away with making stuff up under the guise that "er, I thought it was in the abstract despite not knowing er..yeah" then you're the one with the problem.

    I have no interest in debating a spineless, misinformed, sycophant like you.
    Wow.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Wow.
    Blue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philbert)
    So it's ok to threaten to rape or murder someone as long as it's only a joke? Christ Alive.

    She did have a genuine misogynistic backlash against her. She was hounded for simply proposing a video series talking about the portrayal of women in video games, focusing on the fact that she's a woman. People on this thread are saying things like "if you don't like the games, don't play them", yet these "neckbeards" wanted to were trying to get it shut down because they didn't like the idea.
    That wasn't my point at all. ArtGoblin pointed out that there had been a violent backlash against her ideas, as if to say "look at all the rampant misogyny". My point was that there is no rampant misogyny, it's just teenagers on the internet who don't actually hold misogynistic attitudes, saying things they would never say in real life.

    someone even made a game about punchng her on the basis that she'd scammed people out of their money.
    What's actually wrong with this? That's not misogyny, it's being against lying scamming scumbags.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dartanoir)
    If I am so 'butt ugly' and 'out of shape' how would you explain constant cat calling, threats of rape, and groping?
    EDIT: I live in a really horrible place. I realise that the threats aren't serious most of the time and are made to just make me feel uncomfortable.
    Asserting power over someone weak is what people do when they feel they have little power over their own lives (i.e. people living in a poor area). Nothing to do with sex.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabzqt)
    That wasn't my point at all. ArtGoblin pointed out that there had been a violent backlash against her ideas, as if to say "look at all the rampant misogyny". My point was that there is no rampant misogyny, it's just teenagers on the internet who don't actually hold misogynistic attitudes, saying things they would never say in real life.
    She wanted to talk about how women are portrayed in gaming, that was what so many men reacted to. The number of commenters saying that they didn't want women to "invade their space" was unbelievable.Read some of the comments she got and tell me that there isn't any misogyny there.

    What makes this acceptable just because it's behind a screen? How do you know they don't actually hold these attitudes? If they don't, the fact that they thought it was acceptable to band together to attack someone in that way on the basis that she was going to something they didn't like the idea of is worrying, misogyny or no.

    What's actually wrong with this? That's not misogyny, it's being against lying scamming scumbags.
    Targeting someone like that is horrific, that's what's wrong.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    This was the game description made by the creators:
    “There’s been a disgusting large imbalance of women who get beaten up in games. Let’s add a lady to help balance things,” write the game’s creators.

    “She has refused to address any form of criticism whatsoever, and hides behind the fact she has a vagina, claiming it’s sexist to criticize her in any way.”
    “She claims to want equality: Well, here it is.”


    And why do MRA's think that being allowed to beat up women is in some way part of "being equal"?

    Why do you think she is a "lying scamming scumbag?" :rolleyes: People voluntarily donated, and she received more funding because of the backlash and media attention. That guy more than likely fueled her kickstarter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    IMO, women have the most to be modest about. A womans body is more sexually powerful, but instead of wearing modest clothes, they wear the tightest things on earth.

    And then they have the audacity to say " i'm a strong , independent liberated woman who need no man".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    IMO, women have the most to be modest about. A womans body is more sexually powerful, but instead of wearing modest clothes, they wear the tightest things on earth.

    And then they have the audacity to say " i'm a strong , independent liberated woman who need no man".
    And how is that in any way relevant to this thread?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philbert)
    And how is that in any way relevant to this thread?
    Video games sexualize women. Look at Tomb Raider , and her 'over emphasized' features.

    Men are less sexualised.

    Men in video games are thought to be leaders, the stronger sex.

    Women the sexual gender.

    So if women want to be liberated, they may need to start changing perceptions by dressing modestly.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Alright, these replies are getting beastly.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Except she is advocating against perfectly acceptable tastes in a way that promotes the interest of one set of people over another. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with her preference for content in which female characters are not sexualised but I find her implication that other people’s viewing preferences are somehow a problem or in any way afflict her frankly, authoritarian. She’s instigating the notion that other people’s choices in any way affect her, or others which they do not and it’s as draconian as conservative theists arguing that the presence of gay characters in shows like Will and Grace are a problem for a society. I draw a line when people start fear-mongering on the basis that things that don’t affect them, do.
    I don't agree that she is advocating against certain tastes, but against the reasons why we have them. It's a nuance. There is therefore no reason to call her draconian - she is reformist.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    And she has no moral license to lambast the personal expression of other people’s sexuality. Indeed, there are many an anti-censorship feminist who’d find her regressive stance repugnant due to its policing overtones. If she attacks an individual’s freedom of expression, she is attacking that person themselves. The ‘attitude’ you claim she is advocating against is little more than that of being a healthy, reproductive individual and her choice to lambast people who don’t fit within what she deems personally acceptable is regressive and belongs nowhere in a twenty-first century democracy like ours.
    She was in no way advocating censorship - not in the video I watched - nor was she attacking people's freedom of expression. I think you're reading more from her than she has given; she is critical of the fact that these demands exist, not people's right to exercise that demand - there is a distinction here.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    If you look at the sentence you’re actually quoting me on, you’ll see I didn’t actually claim what you say I did here. What I did point out is that reasonable people should be able to express themselves without fear of retribution from people that claim that their choice to do so is somehow ‘oppressive’ to them.
    You stated it by implication. You said, "The difference is that I don't feel there's any problem with people choosing to express themselves by buying into fashion/gossip magazines." In other words, the difference between you and her. She didn't advocate that people stop buying these games (or any magazines).

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Straw man. Your analogy doesn't work because I'm not implying that we should be allowed to do things that are currently illegal.
    I don't think I misrepresented your argument in any way. Illegality has nothing to do with it - we're talking about principle, not law.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Here’s a more accurate analogy:

    “I’m not attacking gay people, it’s just that as a Christian, seeing a gay couple on television is offensive to my tastes. It’s a problem with society that gay people might want to have their tastes present in media”.
    Alright - where do you stand in this analogy? Are you in favour of gay people being banned from television provided it was in the consumer interest (and that you would simply not purchase these products)?

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    What Sarkeesian seems to abhor is the legitimate expression of self and I just can’t stand in line with authoritarianism like that. Oddly enough, I’m not a huge fan of games with overtly sexualised female characters simply because I think it distracts from good gameplay. That’s why I spend so much time playing racing games more than any other genre. What I find unreasonable is the notion that anybody has a moral license to police what others should or should not like provided they are legitimate and that’s why I equally abhor theistic fundamentalists who believe they have the moral impetus to condemn people for watching pornography.
    Again, she is not policing people's preferences, she's taking issue with the root causes because they culminate in a damaging effect in society (gender stereotypes, prejudice, etc.). That's a perfectly valid thing to do - she's calling it as it is.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Authoritarianism like the one you promote has no place in our society. You can either choose not to watch it, or get out of Europe to somewhere suitable.
    It seems ironic being accused of authoritarianism for being on the side of her freedom of expression, but there you go.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    This media perpetuates nothing but the legitimate expression of self which people of in all of the spectrum have a right to participate in. If people like Sarkeesian wish to see games in a different way, I wish them all the best of luck and to be honest, I’d probably pick it up and play it. But I won’t stand by and watch people from one side of the spectrum try to de-legitimise the freedom of expression of the other side. It’s not on.
    I think the only de-legitimisation of the freedom of expression going on here is you telling her she ought to pipe down and stop 'moral policing'.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    And I stand by my comment that by attacking and demonising one’s legitimate choice of expression, you are attacking the person themselves; “I'm not attacking gay people, I just find their preference for people of the same sex and its proliferation in our media to be a problematic attitude” :rolleyes:
    I agree (except that she's not attacking freedom of expression).

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Of course she can’t “command” anyone to do something, but what she can and has done is launch a multi-thousand dollar campaign to character assassinate people’s choice to express themselves in a way she deems unacceptable whilst simultaneously exclaiming that any deviation from her twisted norm is a form of misogyny.
    Not attacking freedom of expression.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    The root of why I’ve chosen to argue against you is because your beliefs run counter to the philosophy that our gaming industry is built on; the right to legitimate freedom of expression.
    My beliefs support freedom of expression.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    As it goes I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to gender stereotypes, but in any case I abhor people who use the excuse that other people’s freedom of expression inhibits them. I am not inhibited or affected by women’s choice to buy glossy magazines and it would be authoritarian of me to claim it did. They have a freedom to express themselves without fear of being lambasted for a perfectly reasonable choice.
    Yes, they have a freedom to express themselves without fear of being lambasted for a perfectly reasonable choice. No one is being lambasted or criticising their tastes.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    The argument that you believe in is the same as that used on the right and far right to justify taking away the rights of gay people under the guise that their choices in any way affect them.
    I don't believe in the argument you seem to believe I believe in. As stated, I believe in freedom of expression; simultaneously, I believe that she also believes in freedom of expression; additionally, neither she or I are attempting to undermine anyone's rights.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    This is a fair point and I should have elaborated more on that so I apologise. What I should have said is that “nobody has a right to dictate what constitutes a pleasant society if it implicates the freedom of expression of another group”.
    I agree with this (and she is not doing it).

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    I’m not “discussing her conduct elsewhere”. I'm choosing to expose how the arguments used in her video are irrelevant as she has personally illustrated that regardless what happens vis-à-vis the problems exposed in her video, she will be unsatisfied. She spends a 20 minute video telling us how all female characters must be ‘strong’ and that deviation from that is misogynist – but then elsewhere claims that even if a female character was ‘strong’ it’s still symptomatic of the problems she perceives in the first place. It’s lose-lose, there is no pleasing her.
    I don't think it's fair to discuss her thesis without having read it, but even assuming it was contradictory, what would it matter if she said something contradictory in her thesis? People's opinions and arguments are quite able to change over time. I would not want to be judged on arguments that I have since abandoned.

    I am only interested in discussing each argument based on its own merit, not digging for contradictions and using them to criticise her character (and by implication her other arguments) - to do that is ad hominem.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    The notion that this is somehow irrelevant is like saying “that 47% thing is totally irrelevant to Romney’s economic policy because it happened elsewhere and is unfair to bring up”. What utter nonsense you've concocted.
    In Romney's case it is important to establish his credibility (because you must choose whether to vote for him), which makes it an exceptional case. In usual circumstances, one ought to be concerned with a person's individual arguments and accept or refuse them on a discrete, case-by-case basis. If that sounds like nonsense to you then so be it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    Video games sexualize women. Look at Tomb Raider , and her 'over emphasized' features.

    Men are less sexualised.

    Men in video games are thought to be leaders, the stronger sex.

    Women the sexual gender.

    So if women want to be liberated, they may need to start changing perceptions by dressing modestly.
    Well, you're in agreement with most feminists that women in videogames are sexualised and men are less so. It's mostly men who make these videogames because they have a mostly male audience. But I don't really see the need to make women as sexualised as they were in some of the old TR games, unless it's an erotic game or something. I'm not sure if you're complaining that Tomb Raider is sexualised or where you're going with that, really.

    Women are not inherently any more sexual than men, that's just the way they are portrayed in the media.

    As for your last statement, firstly, I think you'll find that the vast majority of women do "dress modestly" for whatever situation is appropriate. For example, when you go to the supermarket, are all the women there wearing skimpy dresses. No, they are not. Why should all women be judged on the actions of a few?

    Secondly, why should women have to change their behaviour because of the actions of men?

    I'll ask you again, how is that relevant to a discussion about videogames? Are you implying that women are sexualised in videogames because women dress "immodestly" in real life?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philbert)
    Well, you're in agreement with most feminists that women in videogames are sexualised and men are less so. It's mostly men who make these videogames because they have a mostly male audience. But I don't really see the need to make women as sexualised as they were in some of the old TR games, unless it's an erotic game or something. I'm not sure if you're complaining that Tomb Raider is sexualised or where you're going with that, really.

    Women are not inherently any more sexual than men, that's just the way they are portrayed in the media.

    As for your last statement, firstly, I think you'll find that the vast majority of women do "dress modestly" for whatever situation is appropriate. For example, when you go to the supermarket, are all the women there wearing skimpy dresses. No, they are not. Why should all women be judged on the actions of a few?

    Secondly, why should women have to change their behaviour because of the actions of men?

    I'll ask you again, how is that relevant to a discussion about videogames? Are you implying that women are sexualised in videogames because women dress "immodestly" in real life?
    I agree with almost everything you say more or less apart from this. Women know they attract men sexually. It's inbuilt in men to be attracted to women. Thus, dressing promiscuously and showboating only attracts men.

    In cultures where it's ok for women to dress like this, you see video games running rife , and pornography (which makes women sexualised and sex symbols everywhere)

    + One thing i do disagree with, is the notion that women aren't more sexual then men. I think they are. Throughout history, women have always been more sexually powerful, from their obvious superiority in beauty to bodily organs. I'm not saying men aren't either, but it's to a lesser degree than women, being the child bearers.

    All in all, the actions of women builds onto the culture, which builds onto the media. It's all cyclical. Why aren't women plain naked on the news? Because society won't accept it. The same reason women with tight tops and mini-skirts aren't appreciated in Iran. Over there, women usually wear head-scarfs.

    Societal norms feeds into the media, which has some influence in video games.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabzqt)
    That wasn't my point at all. ArtGoblin pointed out that there had been a violent backlash against her ideas, as if to say "look at all the rampant misogyny". My point was that there is no rampant misogyny, it's just teenagers on the internet who don't actually hold misogynistic attitudes, saying things they would never say in real life.

    What's actually wrong with this? That's not misogyny, it's being against lying scamming scumbags.
    The internet is real life. If they hold misogynistic attitudes online they will hold them offline as well, and if they don't hold misogynistic attitudes at all then they're breaking the law and ruining a person's day for something they don't even believe in - but that they think it's ok to do that under the guise of misogyny speaks to their perception of misogyny's acceptability (and therefore that it is worth mentioning).

    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    IMO, women have the most to be modest about. A womans body is more sexually powerful, but instead of wearing modest clothes, they wear the tightest things on earth.

    And then they have the audacity to say " i'm a strong , independent liberated woman who need no man".
    Even if I granted immodesty, what does that have to do with not being a "strong, independent, liberated woman"? People can wear what they want - the very fact that they do so by implication makes them independent and liberated (at least in regards to their choice of wardrobe that you're criticising).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    I agree with almost everything you say more or less apart from this. Women know they attract men sexually. It's inbuilt in men to be attracted to women. Thus, dressing promiscuously and showboating only attracts men.
    So what? You didn't answer my questions; how many women actually do that and why should all women be blamed for the actions of a few? You still haven't explained why you said in the first post why you think that women should dress modestly and what that has to do with video games.

    If you're going into a discussion about how women dressing promiscuosly results in sexual assualt, then I hardly see how that's relevant here, so unless you can explain the relevance to the thread, this is off-topic and should not have been brought up here.

    In cultures where it's ok for women to dress like this, you see video games running rife , and pornography (which makes women sexualised and sex symbols everywhere)
    "Video games running rife" :confused: WTF does that even mean?

    Can you provide some examples of these cultures, because none of this makes sense.

    + One thing i do disagree with, is the notion that women aren't more sexual then men. I think they are. Throughout history, women have always been more sexually powerful, from their obvious superiority in beauty to bodily organs. I'm not saying men aren't either, but it's to a lesser degree than women, being the child bearers.
    That's exactly what I mean. Women are portrayed as more sexual. In a lot of video games and media, men are protrayed as strong and capable, and women are just objects to ****. What exactly do you mean by "more sexually powerful"? It's much easier for the average man to overpower a woman sexually, as has been the case throughout history.

    The only reason we see more overly sexual images of women is because women don't buy into sexual images of men as much.

    All in all, the actions of women builds onto the culture, which builds onto the media. It's all cyclical. Why aren't women plain naked on the news? Because society won't accept it. The same reason women with tight tops and mini-skirts aren't appreciated in Iran. Over there, women usually wear head-scarfs.

    Societal norms feeds into the media, which has some influence in video games.
    That still doesn't explain your original post #216, about women wearing "the tighteset things on earth" and liberation. Unless you're going to explain your points properly rather than just trying to lossely piece them together, there is no point trying to debate with you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Philbert)



    That's exactly what I mean. Women are portrayed as more sexual.
    So?
    In a lot of video games and media, men are protrayed as strong and capable, and women are just objects to ****.
    Actually in many video games you don't get woman who are just portrayed as objects to ****. If you had picked up a video game in your life you would understand this.

    The male characters are also always the ones who experience violence and/or their characters usually result in death. Certainly it's far better to be portrayed as a object to **** than to be the ones who always gets killed or seriously hurt. I wonder why you didn't bring this up? Even in games where the female is the lead characters you hardly ever see violence being inflicted upon her. No one is complaining about this though and rightly so because video gamers don't give a **** about gender roles in video games, they want to be entertained.

    Feminist logic not even once.
    What exactly do you mean by "more sexually powerful"? It's much easier for the average man to overpower a woman sexually, as has been the case throughout history.
    What do you even mean by this? Women have always held sexual power over men and in many they do abuse this in real life.

    The only reason we see more overly sexual images of women is because women don't buy into sexual images of men as much.
    So what's the problem here?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    So?
    I was trying to work through his nonsensical replies.

    Actually in many video games you don't get woman who are just portrayed as objects to ****. If you had picked up a video game in your life you would understand this.
    I didn't say all games, so we're in agreement: in many you do and in many you don't. No problem there, and no need to make assumptions about me.

    The male characters are also always the ones who experience violence and/or their characters usually result in death. Certainly it's far better to be portrayed as a object to **** than to be the ones who always gets killed or seriously hurt. I wonder why you didn't bring this up? Even in games where the female is the lead characters you hardly ever see violence being inflicted upon her. No one is complaining about this though and rightly so because video gamers don't give a **** about gender roles in video games, they want to be entertained.

    Feminist logic not even once.
    They want to be entertained, and they're the ones buying games where men are killed/seriously hurt. In war/FPS games, you expect people to be killed, isn't that the point? If it bothers you, then make a separate thread about it, it's not relevant here.

    A woman doesn't need to have her ass and tits out to fight, so why are women put in skipmy clothing in fighting games? Why are they modelled in weird, backbreaking poses when that has nothing to do with the content of the game?

    What do you even mean by this? Women have always held sexual power over men and in many they do abuse this in real life.
    Again, I was asking Mendacium what he meant and trying to get his definition. What do you mean by "sexual power"? There seem to be different interpretations of that flying around here.

    Examples of women abusing this in real life and how that relates to video games? We're going off topic, so I'm trying to bring it back.

    So what's the problem here?
    There is none. Mendacium was saying that women are more sexualised in videogames without saying whether he thought that was bad or not. I'm arguing that men and womn are both sexual, and that women's portrayal in video games is not evidence that they are more sexual, or that it is justification for making them overly-sexual.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    No, my point was that standards have been degraded just to accommodate for women in these areas. Lives are at risk, this is not a place for social experiements to shut up a few moaning feminists. If you're stranded in a burning building and a firefighter starts opening the door to rescue you I can guarantee 99% of the population will be hoping for a male fireman. There's a reason that these professions are dominated by men and it's because men are the best accustomed for these jobs. Now if a woman can meet the male requirements she should be more than free to join.
    That's not what it sounded like at all. What you said is "I'm tired of feminists butting in things which are dominated by men and things in which other women have no interest with" and provided the fire service, army etc as examples of this. Which made it sound like you think certain parts of society should be reserved for men despite some women's interests in this area. That is what I had an issue with. Of course safety is always the priority in these situations, but I don't believe that these organisations would compromise safety in order to appease feminists. The army still doesn't allow women on the front line even if they can reach the male requirements.

    Of course you make a few fallacious assumptions:

    i). That the whole 50% of the population [ie all women] are interested in gaming when in reality a very, very small minority of women actually play games.

    ii). That Feminist Frequency's points that women are reduced to sexual objects actually hold any merit [You're taking it as a gospel truth despite the fact that you've probably never played a video game in your life]

    iii). That all women care about what role women play in video games [Or men for that matter].
    i) I said 'potential audience'. I know only a minority of women play games at the moment but perhaps that could be changed if games developers stopped portraying us in such a degrading way? I would guess the Tomb Raider games have a bigger female audience because the protagonist is a woman - she is the hero, rather than existing as an object for the hero to rescue. And why do you think The Sims 2 is the biggest selling PC game of all time?

    ii) I didn't actually watch her video at all. I've played quite a few video games in my life, although granted that's only because I have a brother who owns them all so I've got into them through him. I think the only reason why men prefer gaming to women is that they're a natural extension to the toys they were brought up with - guns, cars, weapons etc. Women have never been taught to have an interest in these things so why would they spend hundreds of pounds on something they don't know they like?

    iii) I agree that not many people don't care about women's representation in games, but it doesn't mean they are not affected by it. It is not just video games where women and men are given polarised roles - it is in films, TV shows, books and other aspects of media. As a film fan, I have found that the majority of films are about men, or the lead is shared between a man and a woman - it is rare that a film is about women. I don't believe this has no effect on the way that women are seen in the rest of society when they are so invisible in the culture we consume.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    That's not what it sounded like at all. What you said is "I'm tired of feminists butting in things which are dominated by men and things in which other women have no interest with" and provided the fire service, army etc as examples of this. Which made it sound like you think certain parts of society should be reserved for men despite some women's interests in this area.
    Yes that is exactly what I meant and if you had read my post you would see why; it's because men are best accustomed for these positions just like how women are best accustomed in certain areas of the workforce, the same goes for men in some areas of the workforce. And then there are some areas of the workforce where gender plays no role [office jobs etc].

    That is what I had an issue with. Of course safety is always the priority in these situations, but I don't believe that these organisations would compromise safety in order to appease feminists.
    Well this is what these lowering of standards has equated to:



    It's pretty clear that standards have been lowered only after feminists started making a noise about them.
    The army still doesn't allow women on the front line even if they can reach the male requirements.
    Maybe no here but there are many countries which do.



    i) I said 'potential audience'. I know only a minority of women play games at the moment but perhaps that could be changed if games developers stopped portraying us in such a degrading way?
    Well again how have you come to that conclusion without playing any video games?
    I would guess the Tomb Raider games have a bigger female audience because the protagonist is a woman - she is the hero, rather than existing as an object for the hero to rescue.
    And the author of the video makes noises about this too and calls this as sexism as well. You can't win can you. It's exactly the same with feminists in other issues; they bring up disadvantages about women and blame it on patriarchy, then you counter it with the fact that men too are disadvantaged and they blame that too on the patriarchy. You just can't win.
    And why do you think The Sims 2 is the biggest selling PC game of all time?
    I don't think that's got anything in particular to do with women. There are far more PC gamers than say, console gamers. So it makes sense that a PC game is the best selling of all time. Many times PC games have far better sales than the same games on all consoles combined.

    ii) I didn't actually watch her video at all. I've played quite a few video games in my life, although granted that's only because I have a brother who owns them all so I've got into them through him. I think the only reason why men prefer gaming to women is that they're a natural extension to the toys they were brought up with - guns, cars, weapons etc. Women have never been taught to have an interest in these things so why would they spend hundreds of pounds on something they don't know they like?
    I don't get what you are saying about this in relation to my point that FF's points hold?


    iii) I agree that not many people don't care about women's representation in games, but it doesn't mean they are not affected by it.
    I don't think so. I don't think many men who play video games could careless about how women are represented in gaming. They probably relate more to male characters hence why male characters are the lead characters in almost all games.
    It is not just video games where women and men are given polarised roles - it is in films, TV shows, books and other aspects of media.
    By polarised roles you mean stereotypes roles? Well that's what sells and clearly the directors, authors of books and films are doing something which appeals to the majority of the population. If it didn't they would change their direction. As it is they're making billions of pounds of profit from these 'polarised' roles.
    As a film fan, I have found that the majority of films are about men, or the lead is shared between a man and a woman - it is rare that a film is about women.
    Can't say much about this. I'm not much of a film fan and usually only watch comic book films where of course the lead roles are always male [although there are female heroine films these usually are a flop at box office.]
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.